DM's Beatles forums

I am also fine with John being what ever he wanted to be and his political beliefs. But this former personal assistant and scumbag Fred Seaman who is saying this now publicly that John Lennon was a Republican. Is a convicted thief and has lied before about the crimes he did to John and his family after he was killed.He has no honor or integrity at all as far I am concerned.There is still I have read items that Yoko and Sean and John's estate have never seen again or got back that disappeared from the Dakota after John was assassinated.They are stolen properly from John Lennon's estate.I do feel John was at least a liberal on social issues and still left wing.I don't think John turned into a complete Republican toward the end of his life.I think John was somewhat of a Libertarian myself.I don't believe he was a complete socialist either.But anything that such a scumbag would say now.Should not be taken seriously coming from someone who did this to John and his family after he died.Here is some other older articles about this Seaman. For those that don't remember about who he is and what he did.

June 28, 2011Lennon was a closet Republican: AssistantJohn Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

Oh, brother! I don't know that much about Fred Seaman, other than that he was John's assistant, but this just smacks of publicity-seeking, much like the granddaughter of Second Officer Charles Lightoller of the Titanic coming out and saying Quartermaster Hichens turned the wheel the wrong way on the Titanic. (Turns out she had just published a novel -- I find it hard to believe that was a coincidence.)

More on John Lennon’s Move Away from ‘Imagine’: Evolution is ‘Absolute Garbage’

A December article in the The Amerian Conservative reports on some startling revelations from John Lennon himself in a number of interviews that took place near the end of his life. Obviously, the MSM and their co-conspirators in the entertainment media shoved all of this down the memory-hole.

American Conservative’s Jordan Micheal Smith:

In the last major interview Lennon gave, to Playboy in late 1980 (and later released unedited as a book, All We Are Saying), he and Yoko Ono offered opinions that can fairly be described as chastened, jaded, even provincial. …

When it was pointed out that a Beatles reunion could possibly raise $200 million for a poverty-stricken country in South America, Lennon had no time for it. “You know, America has poured billions into places like that. It doesn’t mean a damn thing. After they’ve eaten that meal, then what? It lasts for only a day. After the $200,000,000 is gone, then what? It goes round and round in circles.” It’s a critique of foreign aid readers of P.T. Bauer would be familiar with. “You can pour money in forever. After Peru, then Harlem, then Britain. There is no one concert. We would have to dedicate the rest of our lives to one world concert tour, and I’m not ready for it.”

This was not the ’60s revolutionary who hung out with Yippies and Black Panthers. Not only did Lennon dismiss his earlier efforts, he rejected the entire idea of social change through political action. “I have never voted for anybody, anytime, ever,” he said. “Even at my most so-called political. I have never registered and I never will. It’s going to make a lot of people upset, but that’s too bad.”

“I dabbled in so-called politics in the late Sixties and Seventies more out of guilt than anything,” he revealed. “Guilt for being rich, and guilt thinking that perhaps love and peace isn’t enough and you have to go and get shot or something, or get punched in the face, to prove I’m one of the people. I was doing it against my instincts.” …

Nothing seems less like the popular idea of Lennon, but there was more. In his definitive song, “Imagine”—Yoko Ono has said its lyrics express “just what John believed”—he famously dreams of a world with “no possessions.” The mature Lennon explicitly disavowed such naïve sentiments:

I worked for money and I wanted to be rich. So what the hell—if that’s a paradox, then I’m a socialist. But I am not anything. What I used to be is guilty about money. … Because I thought money was equated with sin. I don’t know. I think I got over it, because I either have to put up or shut up, you know. If I’m going to be a monk with nothing, do it. Otherwise, if I am going to try and make money, make it. Money itself isn’t the root of all evil.

The man who famously called for imagining a world with “No religion” also jettisoned his anti-theism. “People got the image I was anti-Christ or antireligion,” he said. “I’m not at all. I’m a most religious fellow. I’m religious in the sense of admitting there is more to it than meets the eye. I’m certainly not an atheist.”

Even more shocking to the idea of Lennon as a secular leftist, or a deep thinker, the man rejected evolution. “Nor do I think we came from monkeys, by the way,” he insisted. “That’s another piece of garbage. What the hell’s it based on? We couldn’t’ve come from anything—fish, maybe, but not monkeys. I don’t believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men. Why aren’t monkeys changing into men now? It’s absolute garbage.”

According to the American Conservative, Lennon never became a Reagan Democrat, which is pretty much what Fred Seaman, a Lennon assistant, said happened in the article making its way around the news cycle today. But it looks as though that might be more of a conclusion the American Conservative author comes to, as opposed to something Lennon actually said.

No it would not make a difference to me. I would still respect and love John Lennon and his music whether he was a Republican or Liberal or moderate, or socialist or Libertarian.I just think that someone that would steal John's, diarys, photographs etc.Has some serous credibility issues on anything he says.I have read there still at least one of John's personal guitar's missing still.So please excuse me for sounding upset.Not even really about the article about John's politics.But that this convicted crook is crawling coming out once again with more storys.Since John's not alive he can't go to the media and press and explain his views himself.I am sure Yoko is going have things to say about what John's political beliefs were.I just don't believe for one minute.That John would have supported the war in Iraq right now etc.Or the massive federal cuts in funding that has been happening.I believe on human rights issues over the world he would a activist.I believe he would support gay rights and be pro choice to.I think he would be politically active in many social justice and environmental issues to.I also respect everyone's rights to their own political views and feelings on these issues.

In the end, John was a person who made mistakes. I had a hard time accepting that he was sexist or that he hit Cynthia. John being a huge influence on my life, and me not believing in violence against women, that was hard to accept.

But, that being said, I could care less if John was a Democrat, Republican, or...whatever. He made good music, that's all that really matters.

I also have friends who are Republicans, and they're not all terrible, lol!

That why we shouldn't have idols, we should follow messages and not messengers. Actually that was something John said and I take that message. :)

Title: Re: Lennon was a closet Republican: Assistant
Post by: In My Life on July 04, 2011, 03:08:54 AM

Quote from: KeepUnderCover

I had a hard time accepting that he was sexist or that he hit Cynthia. John being a huge influence on my life, and me not believing in violence against women, that was hard to accept.

That's exactly how I always felt. But the more I've read and thought about him the more I understand why he behaved the way he did. And I believe he really evolved as the years went by. I heard a bit of his last interview the other night, where he explained that "Woman" was more than just a love song to Yoko; it was an apology to all women. I'm heartbroken that we never got the chance to see this evolution continue.

Elliot Mintz is now attempting to dispel this. That to me almost makes it more true. I am not a fan of Mr. Mintz. I think he is a sycophant who has for years tried to cash in on his acquaintance with John.

Although, Fred Seaman does have some credibility issues, I think I believe him over Mr. Mintz. Fred was close to John in John's last few years.

I think John matured and saw that his radicalism did not work. He still wanted to live in a better world, but realized that the way he was going about it was futile. We all mellow with age, that is what maturity is.

and here come the attacks. A person can't make mistakes? You have to understand what he was going through at that time as well.It was madness in the Dakota, and he was trying to do what he felt was right. He was wrong with some things, but a scum bag is a bit much.

As far as the whole political thing who knows. There are pictures of him at Jimmer Carter speech around 1976 I believe so maybe he changed his mind. You have to rememeber that Republicans were a little different then. They used to be less in bed with the Christian church, and more about staying out of people's buisness.

As much as I hated reading Seamann's comments, I had to say there was a possibility Lennon became a right-wing sack of crap...As Seamann noted many times in the book, Lennon soured on many things that he used to enjoy. He turned away from the radical left (Hoffman, Rubin) and, along with Yoko, tried to get his net worth up to Paul's after Paul reported his to be about 1/4 billion.Lennon also wanted nothing to do with the public and always made derogatory comments to anyone even glancing at him at a restaurant or anywhere outside. He used to predict for Seamann which person in the restaurant was going to come over for an autograph...As for the ripping of Seamann here, Tony Bramwell knows the Lennon situation a whole lot better than Peregrini or whoever above and he said the Seamann book was one of the two BEST Beatles books.I also doubt this book would have been knocked by people who were close to Lennon in the mid 70s (no, not Paul or George Martin), but by people like Mick Jagger and Colin Hanton.But, Peregrini, if you want to keep believing that total lying sack of crap Yoko that Lennon stayed in the home all day and baked break, you go ahead and stay in that dream world.

Don't you think Lennon was a sack of crap (or however you put it) quite a few times?I'm amazed someone didn't beat the living hell out of him.I'll always admit he was the greatest and most important singer/songwriter of all time anywhere...But a decent guy? No way.There were worse and he might have been coming around, but don't buy what Yoko is telling you. She's a proven liar.

Title: Re: Lennon was a closet Republican: Assistant
Post by: In My Life on January 23, 2012, 06:38:34 AM

Quote from: Nada Surf

Don't you think Lennon was a sack of crap (or however you put it) quite a few times?

There are some historical figures who deserve that label but John Lennon was not one of them. I have known and loved people in my life who, at times, have let me down but I never could put such a label on them. John Lennon is no different.

Quote

I'm amazed someone didn't beat the living hell out of him.

Someone did.

Quote

There were worse and he might have been coming around, but don't buy what Yoko is telling you. She's a proven liar

I don't care what Yoko is or isn't. All that matters to me is that it's a tragedy that he'll never have the chance to show the people in his life who mattered the most if this were the case.

How do you Lennonists defend:His treatment of Cynthia?His treatment of Julian?Beating up Bob Wooler?Bringing Yoko into the tight recording studio?His comments on George Martin in the Rolling Stone interview?His forcing his non-talent wife on us because of his name?

I just don't think that very many people, including John Lennon are all bad. I've done an awful lot of thinking on the subject of John and come to a lot of conclusions which I won't bore everyone with. Suffice it to say that I don't like everything about him but what I do like, his music and his wit (when he wasn't using it as a weapon), I really enjoy.

I just don't think that very many people, including John Lennon are all bad. I've done an awful lot of thinking on the subject of John and come to a lot of conclusions which I won't bore everyone with. Suffice it to say that I don't like everything about him but what I do like, his music and his wit (when he wasn't using it as a weapon), I really enjoy.

Great answer and I actually feel the same way. Yeah, i'm tough on John around here, but I realize he wasnt a terrible person all the time and he did do some good things. Its just that I cant stand when people think of him as some messiah or saint. He wasnt. None of them were. Nobody is.

He was just a guy who played a guitar and wrote some good music. There's better people in the world than him.

For what it's worth, I'm trying to get my Facebook friend Tony Bramwell to talk about Seaman's book and I got him to reply last night. Bramwell was a boyhood friend of John, Paul and George's and worked his way up as part of the Beatles inner circle and into Apple...He wrote the great biography, "Magical Mystery Tours."

14 hours agoJim RichardsTony my friend...I'm having a hard time selling my other Beatle friends on what a good book Seamann's "The Final Days of John Lennon" was...what should I tell them?3 hours agoTony BramwellTell them it's the truth! xxxx

How do you Lennonists defend:Beating up Bob Wooler?Bringing Yoko into the tight recording studio?His comments on George Martin in the Rolling Stone interview?His forcing his non-talent wife on us because of his name?

i think we all know by now is that john was john, he never tried to hide anything, including his peace activism. but the fantastic, lukewarm moralizations expressed here, as well as the paperthin generalizations are a bit off the beaten track :P and open to controversy.

but more to the point yoko was not a no talent wife. she was a performance artist and a recognized leader in the fluxus movement. YES YOKO ONO (http://www.sfmoma.org/about/press/press_exhibitions/releases/2) i found out.

Not to seem like a troll, but if, and when, Wings gets into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, that will mean Linda McCartney will be inshrined with the McCullochs, Laine, Seiwell, Juber, English, Britton, and Holly as well as Paul of course.

Just remember that when going after Yoko for John's over emphasizing her on his albums, songs and live performances.

Paul took his lumps for Linda, SteveJ...On the other hand, Linda was pretty well hidden and actually added to their sound pretty well...The only sound Yoko could have been a positive addition to would have been a city scene with a fire nearby.But, hey, good luck defending Yoko...I encourage more!

For the record, that wasn't a defense of Yoko Ono, just saying that your point there can be used to detract Linda's contribution to Paul McCartney's life and career.

You are right in terms of how Paul was able to integrate Linda into his solo albums, Wings and live shows. He never devoted half an album to Linda singing while he backed her up and such.

In their defense as well, they did seem to be a bit less eccentric and attention seeking in their public displays of affection than John and Yoko. I mean there are songs dedicated to Linda McCartney, but it's not Paul and Linda saying each other's names for a solid 10 minutes.

These are all GREAT guesses but I still put John and Yoko ahead of all of them (and I wish I wasn't able to)...I mean, go back and look at the old Merv Griffin and David Frost clips of the two of them...the album cover...her singing in concert...totally disgusting.Hey Nimrod...how on living earth do you get OFFENDED from an opinion about two other people...Are you joined at the hip with Yoko Ono now or something? Toughen up, mate!

The art she and her fellow artists created was unique in that the actual art was the reaction of the audience...The best one I heard of was the guy who came out in front of a crowd to play the piano and held his hands out to his the keys, but never let them down for over 10 minutes...the crowd's reaction was the art.

If John was in love with Yoko and wanted to write songs about her, what's the problem? One can buy or discard his records, it's his art after all and he could do what he wanted to do. I never cared about Yoko's art, but that doesn't define her as a person. What was her sin? Making John fall in love with her? And John wasn't perfect, is that a sin? At least John brought joy to the heart of many people, that doesn't make him a saint, but he was blessed with a gift and used it better than anybody.

I think its a sin to cause a wedge between a son and a father especially when the relationship was strained to begin with.

I think its a sin to sleep with a married man and to display the atrocious act to the wife and child.

I think its a sin that she participated and probably even encouraged John to use heroin.

I think its a sin to encourage your husband to sleep with other women.

I think her musics a sin for sure.

etc,,,

Hey, I'm a Christian and I agree with you. My point is that we are noone to judge, John and Yoko are human as anybody. People should just care about the art and not about the artist's life. That's the problem when people idolize a star, they pretend him/her to be perfect. I like these John's words:

"When real music comes to me - the music of the spheres, the music that surpasses understanding - that has nothing to do with me, cause I'm just the channel. The only joy for me is for it to be given to me, and to transcribe it like a medium... those moments are what I live for."

We should look at John as a brother, an equal, not an idol. He had a gift, he was special, we all are, we all shine on.

Hey, I'm a Christian and I agree with you. My point is that we are noone to judge, John and Yoko are human as anybody. People should just care about the art and not about the artist's life. That's the problem when people idolize a star, they pretend him/her to be perfect. I like these John's words:

"When real music comes to me - the music of the spheres, the music that surpasses understanding - that has nothing to do with me, cause I'm just the channel. The only joy for me is for it to be given to me, and to transcribe it like a medium... those moments are what I live for."

We should look at John as a brother, an equal, not an idol. He had a gift, he was special, we all are, we all shine on.

*yawn* there is no way to rationalize such demented and thick pc behavior, possibly because of misinterpreted "sour grapesian" mentality. like john lennon said, one thing you can't hide is when you're crippled inside. roll:) ;sorry

all this yoko bashing is fruity and childish. i tell you no lies. ;yes

Not to completely derail this train wreck thread even further, but what is your take on the Heather Mills bashing that is done all over Beatle/McCartney fandom?

Surely there is more, and clearer, evidence of her being what the "haters" accuse Yoko of being.

Or is it easier to judge because we've all lived through Heather Mills, and chances are those whom lived through ALL of the Yoko-Lennon relationship from Day One that it was made public are outnumbered in forums like this one.

Therefore most of 2012's Yoko hate is going off of accounts of differing levels of authenticity or trustworthiness, memories faded and altered thanks to various..."ehem" reasons, and the sad fact that Yoko has been a widow since 12/8/1980 so her side is predominant in the mass information superhighway age.

People have to remember, Ronald Reagan ran on a Libertarianish platform similar to Ron Paul. Actually fight inflation through stopping the growth in the money supply, Regan favored the gold standard and let Ron Paul chair the commission. He was pro cutting taxes and was pro American sovereignty. Lennon didn't really but, it seems, into party labels. Unfortunately, Mr. CIA Bush hijacked the Reagan presidency and instigated Iran-Contra, etc. Reagan more or less became a teleprompter reader after his assassination attempt. Read about the Hinckley/Bush connection.http://www.infowars.com/print/Bush/reagan_libertythink.htm (http://www.infowars.com/print/Bush/reagan_libertythink.htm)

People have to remember, Ronald Reagan ran on a Libertarianish platform similar to Ron Paul. Actually fight inflation through stopping the growth in the money supply, Regan favored the gold standard and let Ron Paul chair the commission. He was pro cutting taxes and was pro American sovereignty. Lennon didn't really but, it seems, into party labels. Unfortunately, Mr. CIA Bush hijacked the Reagan presidency and instigated Iran-Contra, etc. Reagan more or less became a teleprompter reader after his assassination attempt. Read about the Hinckley/Bush connection.[url]http://www.infowars.com/print/Bush/reagan_libertythink.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.infowars.com/print/Bush/reagan_libertythink.htm[/url])

Quote

One fellow Catcher in the Rye devotee and .38 caliber enthusiast -- and 'guest' of WorldVision -- was alleged (apparent?) Lennon assassin Mark David Chapman.

What in the what now?

How can someone be alleged if after shooting a man, point blank, just sits down calmly and waits to be apprehended?

To say nothing about his rantings and ramblings through the years about why he DID it and even admitted to wanting to take out the other three Beatles.

Was the government out to get John Lennon in the early 1970s? Sure, we know this because of the VERY public immigration battles.

But this is too far flung to suggest Lennon's murder 5 years after his vindication, as he is coming back to the recording studio for the first time in those 5 years, and if a cabal was that all powerful and all knowing, they'd get copies of his recordings and notice that he wasn't the angry political guy that he was back in the early 1970s, was part of an orchestrated plot.

Of course that says nothing about the question "why Lennon?" Honestly, I know how the f*** it sounds and believe me I am NOT advocating anything like this, but I can see assassinations of heads of state or those in political power or people in the social/political landscape getting too big for their britches (MLK, Malcom X) according to lunatic fringes. But an entertainer? And a mellowed and dried out one at that. What would the government be afraid of the 1980 Lennon now that whatever "movement" was going on in the late 1960s and early 1970s had long passed. Oh sure, Lennon would have stood up with the No Nukes brigade, sung at the various Aid concerts (though he'd have some snide remark about the crass, commercialization of it all) and would have stood with the Occupy movement, but what would make anything Lennon said or did different than oh say, The Man In Black, Johnny Cash?

And no, don't tell me to expand my mind on this, there is no way you can convince me that John Lennon was the victim of anything other than a mentally unstable person. You'd have a better shot at convincing me that Paul McCartney really did die in an auto accident in 64 or whenever the hell the Paul Is Dead rumors generally say is the date of Paul's "demise" than John Lennon being the victim of a US Government conspiracy.

Answer this question, what POSSIBLE political gain could there have been by killing Lennon in 1980?

And if their goal was to silence his voice and his political nature of his songs, heh heh, well that clearly failed. If anything Lennon = Political Crusader Through Songs GREW with his sudden passing, as he was starting to drift from that kind of angry person of youth.

Hell, why was Lennon the only target? Surely there were others picking up that social/political crusader mantle that John left long ago by 1980, some still to THIS DAY pepper their music and albums with the same hard edged social and political commentary that would have fit nicely in Sometime In New York City. And they are very much still alive.

Please answer those questions and help me understand why a SIMPLE ENTERTAINER would be chosen for assassination by the US Government?

John had a real following. People weren't buying into the Democrat/Republican false paradigm. He questioned all of the motives. He wasn't a useful idiot liberal who hates one side when they do something wrong but praise the other side when they do the same. Like the Hollywood "liberals" who support war when Obama does it but bash Bush when he does it. The fact that they had FBI files on him, they had been following him and threatening him is evidence and the motives are there. Think about in the early 70's when he was speaking out against Nixon and how Nixon and Hoover were running scared.

No, its not wrong. I did post my reasons. Regardless, i'm not going to get into a p*ssing match with you because your an idiot. You only believe what you want to believe without ever posting any facts to back it up and then you force it upon other people. Whatever dude. You win.

In the McCartney bio by Peter Ames Carlin, Ringo was quoted as saying she, Heather, was a horrible person.

In the divorce proceedings she went through a laundry list of vicious attacks against Paul. Sure one never knows the truth behind a public persona, but I'm sure the list included allegations that didn't have the "where there is smoke, there is fire" sense about them.

Look, I know in a bitter divorce it should be hard to choose sides, even if you are emotionally invested as a fan in one of the two going through it, but to say trying to call a spade a spade (I ain't saying she's a gold digga) is ludicrous.

this is kinda silly, basically i wasn't there. and i'm not a pulp fiction kind of guy. end of story. 4ac ;sorry

So...why are you on an internet message board if you think discussions like this are silly?

Well, the point is sure about certain aspects of the artists' personal private life, but if they write songs that are inspired by their loved ones, or hated ones in some cases, and if their lives are an open book to the public, than shouldn't discussions about that be just as much fair game as say what makes you like this song better than this other song?

Or at the very least, able to give answers that aren't pithy "This is childish and silly to even discuss ;yes" one sentence type of responses to people who give well documented examples of their dislike for Heather Mills, Linda McCartney, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono, John Lennon, Cynthia Lennon, Jane Asher, Olivia Harrison, Barbara Bach or whomever else happens to catch the ire of fandom in a thread discussion.

Mel Gibson seems to have lost his mind but that's been evident for quite a while.

Well, yes we know this. But my point is 7 of 13 would have you believe that it's childish to say anything about it, or Mel, because we aren't there with Mel, and most of what has come out has been through "pulp fiction" writers in the media (same with Heather Mills FWIW, you think the author of the book I got the Ringo quote from just MADE it up?) and we don't know the full context of Mel's meltdowns since clearly it's coming from his ex's side.

To say nothing about the fact that if 7 of 13 wants to give Yoko passes because all we know is a very public side of her (and a ton of stuff from anti-Yoko camps from Juillian Lennon to Paul McCartney), shouldn't we then give Mel a pass, and in some sense sympathy if you want to say he's mentally unbalanced or whatever and not say that he is a disgusting human being, even if what he said is factual.

So...why are you on an internet message board if you think discussions like this are silly?

pretending to know the Real John Lennon is quite... errr.... really kinda dumb if you ask me. pay attention next time you listen to one of his songs. irrelevant to the extreme my friend.

Quote

Well, the point is sure about certain aspects of the artists' personal private life, but if they write songs that are inspired by their loved ones, or hated ones in some cases, and if their lives are an open book to the public, than shouldn't discussions about that be just as much fair game as say what makes you like this song better than this other song?

right. i stop right there, knowing very little about artistic integrity and such. in case you have not noticed, most politicians are weasels and theifs, put away the crystal ball. who or what ever told you that their really personal life is an open book, that is a rather irrational statement to make right here. for example how much do you really know about other rock stars. let's start with eric clapton and black sabbath. or johnny cash for that matter.

Quote

Or at the very least, able to give answers that aren't pithy "This is childish and silly to even discuss ;yes" one sentence type of responses to people who give well documented examples of their dislike for Heather Mills, Linda McCartney, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono, John Lennon, Cynthia Lennon, Jane Asher, Olivia Harrison, Barbara Bach or whomever else happens to catch the ire of fandom in a thread discussion.

right. here's the dealio... i tend to disagree, i have better things to do. ;yes

But my point is 7 of 13 would have you believe that it's childish to say anything about it, or Mel, because we aren't there with Mel, and most of what has come out has been through "pulp fiction" writers in the media

Steve, your wasting your time with 7 of 13. He hasent given a single intelligent rebuttal or response to a debate or question since he's been on this forum. Not one. Its like trying to reason with a 2 year old. The Beatles are some of the most famous people in modern history and tons and tons of historical documentation and interviews have been presented, but we're all supposed to ignore that because it must have all been submitted by 'pulp fiction' writers in the media. Other members take that stance too and i've just never understood it. No, I wasnt there, but if a hundred people that were there wrote the same thing, then I would tend to believe it. Not so for some. I wasnt around when George Washington was alive, but I believe he was a real person and the first president of the United States. 7 of 13 would question it though.

Now like a prog song, 7 of 13 will post a repsonse that will be too long and not make any sense, but in his own little world it'll be above everybody else's ability to comprehend it.

Look Im not stupid enough to think theres no truth in all the books, of course there is, but we had this fruitcake nada surf recently who basically worshipped the ground Fred Seaman walked on and kept telling us to read all about J & Y as his version was gospel, and tbh its bollocks, yes some would have been factual and some 'revelationary' to help sell the book and cover publishing costs, what about Albert Goldstein, or Donald friggin Duck, were there versions of the truth 'real' ? was John gay ?

Yes we can form our own view of personalities from all the books as some say the same thing about the subjects, in the end its all about how we perceive the Johns and Pauls stories.There are some famous people who socialised with the Lennons (and knew them well) during the Dakota years and described them as lovely warm & friendly couple, then there is Albert & Fred who would have you believe she was the wicked witch of the north and John was a mad raving lunatic, who you believe is up to you I guess.

When I have opinions of anybody in the Lennon camp, trust me when I say its not due to Seaman or Goldstein. I've never read either of their books. I base my opinion on other sources. Believe it or not, other people have said a few negative things about John and Yucko including the other members of the Beatles. Like you said, who you believe us up to you.

When Paul says that Yoko approcahed him first for money and a relationship, I believe that. Everybody (especially 7 of 13) wants to lean on the belief that the unicorns were spreading sugar on her and Johns relationship and I think (know) the b**** had an agenda. As for John, well everybody knows how I feel about him.

It's now a story. I think John's 40 years were pretty intense. He had some pretty sh*tty times and didn't always keep the best of company or get into the best situations. But along with all that roughness it seemed that when he was in a good place then the people around him would also benefit from him being in that good place.

We don't know the half of what went on and I think it's a bit p*ss poor quality to expect to be entitled to know all, some people are dead, but also some are still living. I guess it's still important to some people but it shouldn't matter to us very much all. It'll still be just celebrity gossip. Still a story.

No, I wasnt there, but if a hundred people that were there wrote the same thing, then I would tend to believe it. Not so for some.

yes, but not when you have not one shard of corroborating evidence. it's like blaming the victim game, or that happy chocolate thing. i tend to posh shuffle anyway, yes.

Quote

7 of 13 would question it though.

of course i would. it's only commonsense.. besides honestly i'm a gotta see it with my own two eyes "faries wear boots" kinda guy, in case you have not yet noticed. but i will say that what you have stated here does make more sense, my responses, though well thought out, do seem to be rather inappropriate and redikleous at times, for the most part.

Quote

Now like a prog song, 7 of 13 will post a repsonse that will be too long and not make any sense, but in his own little world it'll be above everybody else's ability to comprehend it.

When I have opinions of anybody in the Lennon camp, trust me when I say its not due to Seaman or Goldstein. I've never read either of their books. I base my opinion on other sources. Believe it or not, other people have said a few negative things about John and Yucko including the other members of the Beatles. Like you said, who you believe us up to you.

When Paul says that Yoko approcahed him first for money and a relationship, I believe that. Everybody (especially 7 of 13) wants to lean on the belief that the unicorns were spreading sugar on her and Johns relationship and I think (know) the b**** had an agenda. As for John, well everybody knows how I feel about him.

mmkay... fine.. let's get beyond that. i don't like disagreeing as much as the next guy, that much is really true for the most part. ;yes

And another point. Considering how much "Yoko Ono" is pretty much in the zeitgeist as punchline for groups breaking up because of a disagreement between two members, heh ;sorry but the whole "this is childish banter" argument becomes irrelevant ;yes

If you want to say shut up about Clapton-Harrison-Boyd or Chris O'Dell. Fine, by all means, but consider the fact that Yoko Ono transcends mere speculation, innuendo and looking through the subtext of things like song lyrics. Is some of it petty and beating a dead horse? Well sure, but there comes a point where you just can't simply say "this is all silly crap" when "Yoko broke up the Beatles" is a common joke that is played upon in pop culture.

Case in point. There was an episode of the NBC sitcom Friends where Phoebe fell in love with a scientist whom was to go with his partner for a prolonged research project in Minsk. The scientist decided to choose love and stay with Phoebe, there is a scene in the episode after the scientist, David, decided to stay in New York where his partner meets the two at a party. This is what the partner says:

"David. Yoko."

This is an episode that aired in 1994 okay. Think about that. No other Beatle related references in the entire episode, I'm not even sure if there is even another Beatle reference in the rest of the series period! And yet, right there is a "Yoko = breaking up a partnership" joke some almost 25 years, at that point, since the official breakup of The Beatles.

So the point is, you might want to close your mind to it, but it's there. It will always be there. You can't just dismiss it as silly internet message board gossip when its as much of a part of pop culture as Tricky Dick jokes on Richard Nixon for example.

The point is about 7 of 13 considering any and all attacks, for whatever reason just silly, childish, and trollish behavior.

Are the jokes wrong? Of course they are. The wedding blues of all four did play a factor in the breakup but John's relationship with Yoko, and the strains it put on the others, was not the be all end all of the breaking up of the Beatles.

But the fact that the jokes ARE there, the fact that it is the generally accepted, lazy "answer" in mainstream pop culture to blame both Yoko Ono and Linda McCartney for all the wedges in between both the Beatles and the Lennon/McCartney song writing duo, sadly puts Yoko bashing on a different level than say Patti Boyd bashing, or Chris O'Dell bashing where yes that can be considered silly internet trollish behavior.

It's not right of course, and coming from a very low base form of humor (and understanding of how the Beatles broke up), but all I'm saying it can not be dismissed by a simple sentence and a message board smile image.

totally irrational statement, you gotta' trust me on this. try non-issue, because mel gibson is a boy from Austrailia, and the john lennon was a boy from the 'burbs in liverpool don't prove anything at all, and (read : this is beyond silly) that there is some negative energy flowing anyway hard to imagine. like really. geeze.

AND WHY DOES PAUL WANT MY MONEY DOSENT HE HAVE ENOUGH ALREADY? AND OF COURSE I GIVE HIM FUNNY PAPERS HE ASKED FOR THE FUNNIES. I NEVER ASKED HIM FOR HIS NUMBER EITHER OR SITUATION. PLEASE DONT BREAK DOWN PAUL. PLEASE

AND WHY DOES PAUL WANT MY MONEY DOSENT HE HAVE ENOUGH ALREADY? AND OF COURSE I GIVE HIM FUNNY PAPERS HE ASKED FOR THE FUNNIES. I NEVER ASKED HIM FOR HIS NUMBER EITHER OR SITUATION. PLEASE DONT BREAK DOWN PAUL. PLEASE

A pacifist who got in a fight after the famous "Smothers Brothers" incident.An anti-Semitic who hired two Jewish managers.A homophobe who shared a hotel room with a man he knew to be gay.

Lennon donated money to leftist causes, yet he also donated money to the NYPD in 1979 to buy bulletproof vests.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/weekinreview/17decurtis.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/weekinreview/17decurtis.html)

Lennon donated money to leftist causes, yet he also donated money to the NYPD in 1979 to buy bulletproof vests.[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/weekinreview/17decurtis.html[/url] ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/weekinreview/17decurtis.html[/url])

Out of curiosity, where is the contradictory behavior in these actions?

Yes some of Lennon's more leftist causes were against excessive state official brutality and legal punishments, but one would think donating money so the NYPD would have better protection doesn't equate to justifying them in cases where a cop, or multiple cops, go, or are perceived to be by the masses, over the line with extreme measures in taking down a suspect or what have you.

John had his flaws and contradictions like anybody else, but he was neither anti-semitic, nor homophobe.

Snoopy

I have to disagree with you, Snoopy. Please understand that Lennon was close to being a "hero" for me. I accept John for who he was, warts and all. But there are plenty of sources that indicate that John was both anti-Semitic and a homophobe, at least through his Beatle years. Did his views soften in the 70's? Most likely. I've cited sources in other posts, but I highly recommend Larry Kane's book about the U.S. tours. Since Mr. Kane is both Jewish and a big Lennon fan, his anecdotes might be very enlightening.

So much of John's early attitudes were shaped by his Northern England/Liverpool upbringing, which both John and Paul have discussed in interviews.

Out of curiosity, where is the contradictory behavior in these actions?

Yes some of Lennon's more leftist causes were against excessive state official brutality and legal punishments, but one would think donating money so the NYPD would have better protection doesn't equate to justifying them in cases where a cop, or multiple cops, go, or are perceived to be by the masses, over the line with extreme measures in taking down a suspect or what have you.

Contradictory? Well, no more contradictory than if Macca were to invest in McDonald's.

My intention was not to slam John. He was my favorite Beatle and always will be. But I do detect a bit of revisionist history taking place to make John's image a bit more politically correct. See my other posts if you're really interested. But I'd rather read about John, the human being, not Saint John. Even Macca has decried the posthumous sainthood of John, or in Paul's words, the "Martin Luther Lennon" syndrome.

Even Macca has decried the posthumous sainthood of John, or in Paul's words, the "Martin Luther Lennon" syndrome.

Sorry, but Macca's statement is pretty irrelevant to me, since he's probably jealous of the iconic figure John has always been (and still is). Paul can live another 20 years; he'll never be an "icon" like John and he knows that.

What the "Martin Luther Lennon syndrome" concerns... well, that's bullsh** to me roll:) There is a reasonable balance between great admiration and regarding him as a saint. I think "true" fans know what I mean. Just because John may have made remarks or fun (like many other people do) about jews and gays, calling him "anti-semitic and "homophobe" is going to far IMHO.

The only thing he can be blame for was to be big-mouthed and to say aloud what other people or artist just thinks, but are afraid to speak about. John wasn't more contradictory than anyone else.

Sorry, but Macca's statement is pretty irrelevant to me, since he's probably jealous of the iconic figure John has always been (and still is). Paul can live another 20 years; he'll never be an "icon" like John and he knows that.

What the "Martin Luther Lennon syndrome" concerns... well, that's bullsh** to me roll:) There is a reasonable balance between great admiration and regarding him as a saint. I think "true" fans know what I mean. Just because John may have made remarks or fun (like many other people do) about jews and gays, calling him "anti-semitic and "homophobe" is going to far IMHO.

The only thing he can be blame for was to be big-mouthed and to say aloud what other people or artist just thinks, but are afraid to speak about. John wasn't more contradictory than anyone else.

Snoopy

Well, Snoopy, we can agree to disagree. I respect your opinion. It's just that the totality of John's views in his youth and beyond shows Lennon as being typical for a boy that grew up in Liverpool in the 40's and 50's. To use a phrase that has become passe' in recent years, would you not agree that John was once a "male chauvinist" in his attitude toward women? IMHO, his views on gays and Jews were just as neanderthal as a younger man. But he matured or evolved or grew as a person (as most of us did), and became more tolerant (at least) or enlightened (at best). If my opinion is correct, it's just another reason to appreciate John.

a cynic might suggest donating money to nypd was a clever way of getting the cops 'on board'

or it's quite possible that a down to earth flesh and blood humane, compassionate being might just think that John was being a humanist and a pacifist. i must say that for myself anyway, that some of these stereotypes are just plain silly and a wee bit contrived/awkward/controversial, if you get my drift here.

Sorry, but Macca's statement is pretty irrelevant to me, since he's probably jealous of the iconic figure John has always been (and still is). Paul can live another 20 years; he'll never be an "icon" like John and he knows that.

What the "Martin Luther Lennon syndrome" concerns... well, that's bullsh** to me roll:) There is a reasonable balance between great admiration and regarding him as a saint. I think "true" fans know what I mean. Just because John may have made remarks or fun (like many other people do) about jews and gays, calling him "anti-semitic and "homophobe" is going to far IMHO.

way too far overboard, still afloat in basic beatles mythology more than anything else for my money. IMHO mediocre mass media labels are next to useless, if nothing else. ;yes

Sorry, but Macca's statement is pretty irrelevant to me, since he's probably jealous of the iconic figure John has always been (and still is). Paul can live another 20 years; he'll never be an "icon" like John and he knows that.

If Paul McCartney were murdered in the same way as John Lennon, he would have been just as big as an 'icon' in every way.

Well, Snoopy, we can agree to disagree. I respect your opinion. It's just that the totality of John's views in his youth and beyond shows Lennon as being typical for a boy that grew up in Liverpool in the 40's and 50's. But he matured or evolved or grew as a person (as most of us did), and became more tolerant (at least) or enlightened (at best).

What you describe above can probably be applied to 1'000 of other men who grew up in the 40's and 50's, not only to John. And many of them probaly also grew as a person and matured, so why stress it on John only ? At least, he had the courage not to hide his prejudices and changed for the better - not everyone does.Snoopy

What you describe above can probably be applied to 1'000 of other men who grew up in the 40's and 50's, not only to John. And many of them probaly also grew as a person and matured, so why stress it on John only ? At least, he had the courage not to hide his prejudices and changed for the better - not everyone does.Snoopy

Absolutely, Snoopy. My gripe is that there IS some revisionist history going on with John, and as a public figure, his entire life is under the microscope. John did express his prejudices. But some folks (listen up, Rolling Stone editors) are trying to sweep his comments under the rug. He wasn't always peace and love.

Being a historian by profession, I've been trained to keep personal biases out of the equation. So even though I favor John over Paul, I believe 100 years from now, history will show that Paul was the better musician and, overall, the better songwriter. History will show that John was nearly as great as a songwriter. But, history will also show that during the Beatle years, their collaboration and competition brought out the best in both of them. Of course, history will also say that Paul was the cuter of the two, so what does history know? :)

Absolutely, Snoopy. My gripe is that there IS some revisionist history going on with John, and as a public figure, his entire life is under the microscope. John did express his prejudices. But some folks (listen up, Rolling Stone editors) are trying to sweep his comments under the rug. He wasn't always peace and love.

John never claimed having always been "peace and love"... who is such anyway ?

Yes, his life was under a microscope and many things he said and did were misinterpreted, exaggerated, written down in trash-books and often let him look worse than he really was - and this applies for many others artists too. But "true" fans should known it better I think.

So even though I favor John over Paul, I believe 100 years from now, history will show that Paul was the better musician and, overall, the better songwriter. History will show that John was nearly as great as a songwriter.

That's very subjective and only speculation, isn't it ? Just because you're historian doesn't make you a clairvoyant. But it's fun to speculate; so how about that history will show in 100 years that George actually was the most talented musician among the Beatles ? roll:). You don't seem to be very confident about John's talent being perceived at his right value in futur, do you ?

imo John was a very mixed bag, an enigma, like most kids in that period he was brought up by racist people, I grew up in Manchester England in the 60's, a city 30 miles from Liverpool and with similar values, my parents didnt like coloured immigrants coming into England from India & Pakistan etc taking jobs away from English people, they voiced their opinions just like all our neighbours did so theyre kids grew up saying similar things. Of course John also had all the other problems he had re his bad parents and grew up with a chip on his shoulder, he had a bad temper and I could imagine him kicking in a public phone box or slapping Cynthia if she answered him back etc etc on the other side he could be warm & gentle and write poetry and beautiful love songs.In the early 60's (I remember it) he was the driving force behind the biggest band in the world, he came over as the leader, he was a very funny guy in interviews and people warmed to his seemingly magnetic personality, he seemed to have a deeper side though (a certain honesty) and fans tapped into this, I think people perceived him to be an intricate genius who could denounce his work one minute as crap, but then proclaim it as great, one minute The Beatles were the greatest biggest band ever, 6 months later they were just big bastards.I think this is how his mind worked, he changed his mind about things and then his honesty (when a mike was stuck in front of him) took over and he said what he was feeling at that moment. Not always thinking who it could hurt.John was a flawed genius, but fans of him (like me) are mesmerised by him, by his personality, his songs (like Tomorrow Never Knows/Walrus/Lucy/SFForever) definitely changed popular music in the 60's imo. They may not seem that revolutionary now but back then they were incredible.

John never claimed having always been "peace and love"... who is such anyway ?

That's true, Snoopy. He didn't. As you pointed out in an earlier comment, John often said what he was thinking, even if (in retrospect), his words would be considered politically incorrect by today's standards. But that was my point: There are those who are attempting to paint John as forever "peace and love", and deliberately hiding his so-called "flaws". It's like taking the cigarette out of Paul's hand on the Abbey Road cover. What next? Giving Ringo a Photoshop nose job?

That's very subjective and only speculation, isn't it ? Just because you're historian doesn't make you a clairvoyant.

Geez, Snoopy. We either need to get together for a few beers or fisticuffs.

If I were being subjective, I'd declare Lennon right up there with Mozart. But referring back to my historian profession, there is a lot of speculation that goes on, but it is often based on how history has treated other subjects in the past. People like JFK, Churchill, et. al., are easier to appraise years later when emotional biases have faded. More to the point, read up on Buddy Holly and find out what musical historians think of him 50 years after his death. Nope, I'm not a clairvoyant, just making an educated guess. Let's say that in 100 years, you and I meet up for those beers of a fist fight. Cheers.

If I were being subjective, I'd declare Lennon right up there with Mozart. But referring back to my historian profession, there is a lot of speculation that goes on, but it is often based on how history has treated other subjects in the past. People like JFK, Churchill, et. al., are easier to appraise years later when emotional biases have faded. More to the point, read up on Buddy Holly and find out what musical historians think of him 50 years after his death. Nope, I'm not a clairvoyant, just making an educated guess. Let's say that in 100 years, you and I meet up for those beers of a fist fight. Cheers.

Sorry, but I don't understand the comparison of John with Mozart ? ??? Or are you trying to say that John wasn't as talented as musician as Mozart ? ... and I have no idea what musical historians think now of Buddy Holly ??

Well, I'd guess that people like JFK, Churchill etc. will still be known for what they did even in 100 years, like Ceasar, Hannibal, Leonardo Da Vinci.... (and of course Justin Bieber ;D)

By the way, as I don't drink beer I'd rather take the fist-fight... if I'm still around in 100 years ;)

There are those who are attempting to paint John as forever "peace and love", and deliberately hiding his so-called "flaws".

Yes, but "those" are in the minority, aren't they ? Just by reading through this topic you should be aware that the majority likes to point out John's so-called flaws again and again... much more than any other Beatle.

Paul for instance always was much more smarter in hiding his flaws than John, though also less open. Further, he has the big advantage to be still alive, so it's more difficult to spit on him.

I think people perceived him to be an intricate genius who could denounce his work one minute as crap, but then proclaim it as great, one minute The Beatles were the greatest biggest band ever, 6 months later they were just big bastards.John was a flawed genius, but fans of him (like me) are mesmerised by him, by his personality, his songs (like Tomorrow Never Knows/Walrus/Lucy/SFForever) definitely changed popular music in the 60's imo.

Paul for instance always was much more smarter in hiding his flaws than John, though also less open. Further, he has the big advantage to be still alive, so it's more difficult to spit on him.

Snoopy

Paul gets spit on all the time, but the fact of the matter is that John really was a bigger a**hole than the rest of them. Regarding the four members and their flaws, Paul really was the best out of the bunch now that I think about it.

Paul gets spit on all the time, but the fact of the matter is that John really was a bigger a**hole than the rest of them. Regarding the four members and their flaws, Paul really was the best out of the bunch now that I think about it.

nah, Paul was very very egotistical, I mean imagine releasing your solo album 3 weeks before the final Beatle album, and an album where youve took over everyones jobs.................you just dont do that.

nah, Paul was very very egotistical, I mean imagine releasing your solo album 3 weeks before the final Beatle album, and an album where youve took over everyones jobs.................you just dont do that.

nah, Paul was very very egotistical, I mean imagine releasing your solo album 3 weeks before the final Beatle album, and an album where youve took over everyones jobs.................you just dont do that.

George in my mind was the nicest of them, not even an ego.

i disagree about the Sir Paul was very egotistical thing. i'm not saying that there is anyway to measure such a thing or that it really matters. i always wonder why Sir Paul is not afforded the visionary label, since alot of his ideas are what fueled several albums, including Sgt Peppers and others. besides it's hard to measure creativity i would think. maybe the beatles were a done deal as far as being a creative entity in the studio goes, too much friction perhaps.

i disagree about the Sir Paul was very egotistical thing. i'm not saying that there is anyway to measure such a thing or that it really matters. i always wonder why Sir Paul is not afforded the visionary label, since alot of his ideas are what fueled several albums, including Sgt Peppers and others. besides it's hard to measure creativity i would think. maybe the beatles were a done deal as far as being a creative entity in the studio goes, too much friction perhaps.

I dont want to be seen as kicking Paul the beatle, he was brilliant back then and sure was visionary imo..... I'll kick Paul the solo/Wings version though haha

I just didnt like the way Paul handled leaving the Beatles, that story of the other 3 going round to his house asking him not to release his album BEFORE Let It Be and Paul throwing Ringo out does say a lot about his ego...

but whatever, its all water under the bridge now, I just dont like it when Todd puts him up as some sort of saint hahaha

nah, Paul was very very egotistical, I mean imagine releasing your solo album 3 weeks before the final Beatle album, and an album where youve took over everyones jobs.................you just dont do that.

But yet it was fine for John to have Yoko in the studio at all times when they wanted to work? Talk about an ego. Paul released the album because the other three were sh*tting on him at the time. I'm glad he did it.

Quote

George in my mind was the nicest of them, not even an ego.

He banged Maureen though and wasnt the best towards Pattie. I cant let that go. The documentary that was recently out turned me off on him too.

I just didnt like the way Paul handled leaving the Beatles, that story of the other 3 going round to his house asking him not to release his album BEFORE Let It Be and Paul throwing Ringo out does say a lot about his ego...

The other three already kicked him to the curb though by suing him and so forth. I would have said f*** You too.

Quote

but whatever, its all water under the bridge now, I just dont like it when Todd puts him up as some sort of saint hahaha

ha2ha I admit that was a good one Kev.

I'm not putting Paul in the sainthood category, but when I do the third grade pro's and con's chart, he comes out on top of the other three. I just feel he was a better person to others is all. No biggie.

Would I like the Fred Seaman book? I'm going to get it anyway. It might make me cry a bit.

I know that Seaman's book is very controversial and many fans hate it. Personally, I must say that I'm glad to have read it, though it's certainly not my favourite one about John. But it gives an interesting insight about John's last months.

Some passages are enjoyable, some sad, some realitstic, some hair-raising, but one thing is sure: Seaman liked John and always disliked Yoko. It's up to everyone to make his own opinion about it. If you read it, it would be nice to write down your opinion in the forum.

I know that Seaman's book is very controversial and many fans hate it. Personally, I must say that I'm glad to have read it, though it's certainly not my favourite one about John. But it gives an interesting insight about John's last months.

Some passages are enjoyable, some sad, some realitstic, some hair-raising, but one thing is sure: Seaman liked John and always disliked Yoko. It's up to everyone to make his own opinion about it. If you read it, it would be nice to write down your opinion in the forum.

Snoopy

yeah but can you imagine if every hired help wrote a book about theyre former employer, no famous person would ever employ anyone........isnt there some sort of ethical code here ?